Jaycox v. Lumpkin

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court OVERRULES 10 Objections and ADOPTS the 7 Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions. 2 Application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, The 1 petition for habeas corpus relief is DISMISSED with prejudice. ACertificate of Appealability is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified. (rad6)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VICTORIA DIVISION

FLOYD JUNIOR JAYCOX,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Petitioner,
VS.
BOBBY LUMPKIN,
Respondent.

March 11, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:24-CV-00037

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Floyd Junior Jaycox, an inmate incarcerated at the William P. Clements
Unit in Amarillo, Texas, filed a pro se and in forma pauperis petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (D.E. 1, 2).
United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”, D.E. 7), recommending that (1) Jaycox’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis be denied; (2) his habeas corpus petition be dismissed with
prejudice because it is time barred, and (3) a Certificate of Appealability be denied. Pending
before this Court are Jaycox’s objections to the M&R. D.E. 10. For the following reasons,
the Court OVERRULES his objections and ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court conducts a de novo review of any part of a magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3); Warren v. Miles, 230 F.3d 688, 694 (5th Cir. 2000). “Parties filing objections
1/5

must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general
objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834
F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (discussing pro se petitioner’s objections to
M&R), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415
(5th Cir. 1996). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews
for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864
F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
DISCUSSION
I.

Habeas Corpus Petition
a. Legal Standards
A court may authorize proceedings in forma pauperis, pursuant to the standards set

forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). A court may “dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that—the action or appeal—is frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
District courts may raise a statute of limitations defense sua sponte and dismiss a
habeas corpus petition if “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits
annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Kiser v.
Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4).
b. Analysis
The Magistrate Judge recommended that Jaycox’s habeas corpus petition be
dismissed because it was filed outside the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s
one year statute of limitations and is now time barred. D.E. 7, pp. 3-7.
2/5

Jaycox objects to this recommendation by claiming actual innocence, which would
warrant an equitable exception to the limitations period. DE. 10, p. 3. He states that there
was no factual evidence to support his conviction, and that his mental incompetence
rendered him unable to argue the merits of his case. Id. at pp. 3-4. He claims that the
exhibits attached to his original petition demonstrate his actual innocence, and that he did
not intentionally and knowingly plead guilty to the crime of his conviction. Id. at p. 4.
Jaycox also objects by arguing that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the habeas
petition filing deadline. Id. at p. 5. He states that the ineffectiveness of his counsel
prevented him from filing his habeas petition within the proper limitations period. Id. at
p. 5. Jaycox also asserts that he has pursued his rights diligently, and that due to his mental
incompetency and misleading information from counsel, he did not properly file his claims.
Id. at p. 7.
While Jaycox outlines the legal standards to be followed for actual innocence claims
and for equitable tolling, id. at pp. 4, 7-8, his caselaw citations are conclusory statements
that present no specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. Instead, he
continues to point the Court to his habeas petition and accompanying exhibit. See id. at pp.
3-4, 10, 13. Jaycox does not “raise a factual objection by merely reurging arguments
contained in the original petition.” Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993)
(citing Smith v. Collins, 964 F.2d 483, 485 (5th Cir. 1992)). His objections regarding the
dismissal of his in forma pauperis application and habeas corpus petition are therefore
OVERRULED.

3/5

II.

Certificate of Appealability
a. Legal Standards
An appeal may not be filed in a habeas corpus proceeding “unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of
appealability (“COA”) may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C § 2253(c)(2).
When a court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds, “a COA should issue
when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). A court may sua sponte rule on a COA.
Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000).
b. Analysis
The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the Court sua sponte deny a COA on
procedural grounds because “[r]reasonable jurists would not find that Petitioner has stated
a valid claim of denial of a constitutional right, or that the assessment of limitations in this
case is debatable.” D.E. 7, p. 8.
Jaycox objects, stating that a COA determination requires a review of all factual
claims, supporting records, and an assessment on the merits. D.E. 10, p. 2. He argues that
he has shown in his petition that reasonable jurists would find his claims debatable, and
that he has made meritorious factual claims which were not reviewed by the Magistrate
Judge because his petition is time barred. Id. at pp. 2-3.
4/5

Jaycox cannot show that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the
statute of limitations bars his petition in this case. His petition comes after the one-year
statute of limitations period as set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), and he cannot get
around this procedural bar by equitable tolling or an actual innocence claim, as the Court
has stated above. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484 (“Where a plain procedural bar is present and
the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not
conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner
should be allowed to proceed further. In such a circumstance, no appeal would be
warranted.”). His objection is OVERRULED.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set
forth in the M&R, as well as Jaycox’s objections, and all other relevant documents in the
record, and having made a de novo disposition of the portions of the M&R to which
objections were specifically directed, the Court OVERRULES Jaycox’s objections (D.E.
10) and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions (D.E. 7). As a result,
Jaycox’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED (D.E. 2), his petition for
habeas corpus relief is DISMISSED with prejudice (D.E. 1), and any request for a
Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
ORDERED on March 11, 2025.
_______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5/5